Very well, the cognition part. This year I will spend more blog-time writing about cognitive science topics. I’ll try to communicate my ideas in English, just in case I will reach a non Dutch speaking audience. And most of the stuff you get to read on cognition is English anyway. If I find the time I will sometimes include Dutch translations or summaries.
DUTCH: Ok, cognitie dus. Dit jaar wil ik meer blogtijd reserveren voor cognitiewetenschap (kunstmatige intelligentie, cognitieve psychologie). Ik zal deze serieuze onderwerpen in het engels bespreken, om ook het niet-nederlandse publiek te kunnen bereiken. Bovendien zijn bijna alle wetenschappelijke publicaties op het gebied van cognitie in het engels geschreven dus daar sluit ik me dan maar bij aan. Mail me gerust even als dit een onverstandige beslissing zou blijken te zijn.
In order not to start with the heavy stuff right away, first an anecdotical introduction to the subject-matter. Yesterday I read a letter published in my newspaper, written by my old professor of neuropsychology Herman Kolk. In this letter, prof. Kolk brought back memories regarding his old professor, A.D. de Groot. De Groot recently passed away. He is one of the most famous Dutch cognitive psychologists, I guess. He became especially known for his study on the cognitive processes in the chess-player. Proficient players do not spend time consciously reasoning about the next best move. Instead, they instantly recognize the current positions on the bord as affording a next move. Chess playing as a kind of pattern recognition process instead of linear linguistic reasoning. At least, that is what I know of his work, but the theories of De Groot I will leave for another time since I first want to actually read his book, which I have never done so far. In the same newspaper it also said that Herbert Simon (whose book I did read) taught himself to read Dutch in order to read De Groot’s thesis. This claim turned out to be nonsense, however. Well, at least I can say I learned to read English in order to read Simon’s book! (Although I didn’t teach myself).
Anyway, Herman Kolk recalled that De Groot was not only a good scientist, he was also a very good teacher. De Groot apparently greatly appreciated when a student would discover a flaw in his reasonings and be brave enough to confront him with it, or would generally give critical response to the teacher. Kolk wrote that he himself, during an oral exam, wasn’t able to find a flaw in De Groot’s theories, but that De Groot appreciated Kolk’s attempts in finding them nonetheless (oral exams in those days would mean that teacher and student would sit in the professor’s home in easy chairs and both smoke cigars while discussing the theory).
I once wrote a paper on aphasia, for one of Herman Kolk’s courses. I tried to argue in this paper that Kolk’s theory of aphasia would fit more naturally within a dynamical systems view on cognition. As it happens, I really wasn’t interested in aphasia all that much. In those days, I would be ready to claim that everything ever written or said would fit more naturally within a dynamical systems view on cognition. All I wanted to do was write about dynamical systems, no matter what, so I kept on tinkering with the paper until I got both aphasia and dynamical theory in one, not-very-coherent, story.
I now understand the shift in roles that Kolk must have been experiencing. Although I never got to smoke cigars nor sit in Herman’s easy chairs, I very much wanted to be the critical student that Kolk himself wanted to be in his younger days. And Kolk, as a professor, wanted to be the teacher that appreciates a critical young student. When he had read my piece, prof. Kolk handed me the paper and said: Of course, it is all complete nonsense, but I graded you an 8 anyway.
In hindsight, I guess that perhaps his memories of smoking cigars with prof. De Groot helped me get such a good grade that day.
Popularity: 9% [?]
